Greensburg property owner appeals cleanup order

We are currently undergoing updates to our site and are working to improve your experience on all devices that you use throughout your day. If you should find a page or a story that is not working correctly, please click here.

Thank you for your patience,

TribLIVE.com Team

A convicted swindler has appealed efforts by Greensburg officials to force him to clean up his Westminster Avenue property.

On Monday, Keith Maydak, 42, of Seattle, filed an appeal in Westmoreland County Common Pleas Court, naming Greensburg, the five city council members, city solicitor Bernard McArdle and Les Harvey, code enforcement officer, as defendants.

Maydak, who says he lives out of the country but has a Seattle mailing address, asks a judge to reverse council's decision and for him to be reimbursed costs.

He asks a judge to declare the procedures used by the city as “invalid, unconstitutional and contrary to law.”

Last month, council ruled that Maydak needed to clean up his property at 24 Westminster Ave. or allow the house to be torn down. They called the house unfit for human habitation and a safety hazard.

City officials discontinued an earlier lawsuit they filed against Maydak.

Maydak, described in court documents as an accomplished computer hacker, was sentenced in 1994 by a federal judge to serve eight years in prison for defrauding AT&T out of more than $550,000.

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our
Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent
via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.